The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Annu Tandon and three others in the Rail Roko protest case has modified the sentence awarded to Ex-MP Annu Tandon and others. The bench noted that citizens have right to protest against government policies/inaction in a democracy without committing an offence. (Annu Tandon and three others v. State Through Railway Protection Force)
Facts of the case
The appellants were leading the protest along with 150-200 Congress workers as they were staging a protest with flags and banners of the Congress Party in their hands and demanding that the City Magistrate, Unnao should come there to receive the memorandum in the name of the President of India. However, no one alleged that the same was a violent protest, however, the fact remains that Train No.18191 UP was detained by the protesters, including the appellants, and as per the prosecution case, when the train reached the railway overbridge, the protesters in large number came on the railway track and the driver slowed down the train and stopped it finding a large number of protesters on the track. The train remained stopped for about 15 minutes.
The appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389 CrPC was filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Trial Court under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, 1989, whereby the Special Judge has convicted and sentenced Tandon, along with the then district president Surya Narayan Yadav, city president Amit Shukla, and Youth Congress Ankit Parihar under Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act with simple imprisonment for two years and further under Sections 357 and 359 CrPC has imposed fine of Rs 25,000 on each appellant to be deposited with the Railway administration and default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment.
Contention of the parties
The counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the protest was staged at the open space near the railway track by the appellants and other Congress workers, and it was not the Rail Roko Agitation as held by the learned trial court. The Congress workers led by the appellants wanted to give a representation/memorandum to the President of India through the City Magistrate, Unnao regarding the alleged atrocities on the farmers of the Madhya Pradesh by the Bhartiya Janta Party Government of the said State. A protest against the alleged atrocities on the farmers of the Madhya Pradesh, was organized near the railway track in the open space by the Congress workers. The driver seeing the crowd near the railway track, slowed down the train and stopped the train and some protesters allegedly climbed on the engine of the train and after some time, they came down from the train and allowed the train to move.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is admitted case that the train was stopped for 15 minutes due to the agitation led by the appellants and other protesters, and the track got cleared after the RPF/GRP team reached there. Appellant no.1 was leading the protest with three other appellants and other Congress workers had obstructed the running of the train for 15 minuted inasmuch as they were on the railway track and they also climbed the engine of the train, which would amount to picketing. The prosecution by cogent and credible evidence had proved the case against the appellants, and there is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgement and order passed by the learned trial court, which is based on sound reasoning and appreciation of evidence. He submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Courts Observation & Order
The bench taking note of section 174(a) of the Railways Act observed, “Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of running of any train by squatting or picketing or during any Rail Roko Agitation or bandh, the same would amount to an offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. It is no one’s case that the protest was violent, but the fact remains that the protesters, including the appellants, had stopped the train for 15 minutes by picketing on the railway track and climbed on the engine of the train when it was stopped. 29. In view thereof, the offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act is clearly established against the appellants and the trial court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction or evidence in convicting them for offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act.”
The bench further remarked, “In a democratic polity governed by a written Constitution, people have rights of protest against the Government’s policies, perceived atrocities. The right to protest, is also part of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The citizens of this country have rights for demonstration, agitation and staging protest. However, this right is not an absolute right, and it is subject to reasonable restriction. If law prohibits or restricts exercise of this right in certain ways and manners, then such a law would amount to putting reasonable restriction in exercise of the said right. The citizens of this country are not permitted to violate a law enacted by the legislation while exercising their right of protest, freedom of speech and expression.”
The bench modifying the order passed by the trail court remarked, “However, so far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that awarding the sentence to the appellants for maximum sentence of two years of simple imprisonment in the facts and circumstances of the case, is excessive. In democracy under our Constitution, people have right to protest against Government policies/action/inaction, provided the protest does not lead to commission of an offence by the protesters. Except for detaining the train for 15 minutes, there was no damage to private and public property by the protesters by and large it was a peaceful and symbolic protest.
In view thereof, this Court finds that imprisonment of two years is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the impugned judgement and order dated 18.3.2021 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced with fine only. The appellants had already deposited the fine of Rs.25,000/- each and, therefore, no further fine is required to be deposited by them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.”
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments